EU law prevails over national law

The trouble with bloggers who get into the fine detail is that few wish to read the fine detail and that gets into the whole nature of blogs per se. The more serious blogger possibly does not have the medium to communicate through, except as a pointer, Luikkerland, for example, is one who sees it more as a series of reports and articles than a blog.

Ian Parker-Joseph has sent this below, which came from a correspondent of his and I did read through it. It was both galling yet neither more or less than what we’ve come to expect. During the Olympics seems as good a time as any to run it.

My own comment is that if you take your eyes off the bstds for even a day, they’re not at the Olympics cheering on but silently working behind the scenes to further their control over the nations. We’re sick of them, bored with them but they continue on, irrespective.

The abstract is short – please give it some of your attention.

Subject: EU Law prevails over National Law, INCLUDING NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.Date: Sat, 4 Aug

As you may know, I am fighting against the “The Data Retention (EC Directive) known by the UK Government under Regulations 2007 EXPLANATORY NOTE(This note is not part of the Regulations)

However, by whatever title these Regulations implementing Directive 2006/24/EC (“the Directive”) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC.

Apparently, I am not on my own in fighting against this EU Legislation. As I am in the process of responding to the Government’s Consultation Paper on this matter, in updating parts of my research I have come across these four papers I have placed in attachment. It seems I am not on my own any more.

Please Note at the bottom of the first page of the letter Dated 10th November 2010 it states quite clearly “In this context, it must be recalled that Union Law prevails over National Law, INCLUDING NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

I have never seen that so clearly written before. Our Governments knowing this and poo-pooing the thought, is without doubt TREASON. As this is more YOUR future I am sending these to you. Best wishes, Anne Palmer.

The German Working Group on Data Retention (Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung) had requested the European Commission to disclose an opinion of the Commission’s Legal Service (Ares(2010)828204) analysing the “possibility to to render the application of the Data Retention Directive (2006/24/EC) optional to Member States (MS) and the consequences of such a different treatment between MS as well as the question of the legal basis on which future instruments on data retention should be adopted”.

This opinion was prepared for the Directorate-General Home Affairs (DG HOME) in the context of it’s internal discussion of the revision of the Directive. The Commission decided to decline access to this opinion tackling an “area of high sensitive nature”, taking into consideration that the “legal issues discusses in it are still and would be in the future subject of discussion by the College in the context of the adoption of a proposal for the revised Data Retention Directive”. 21 February 2012:

This development of the common law regarding constitutional rights, and as I would say constitutional statutes, is highly beneficial. It gives us most of the benefits of a written constitution, in which fundamental rights are accorded special respect. But it preserves the sovereignty of the legislature and the flexibility of our uncodified constitution. It accepts the relation between legislative supremacy and fundamental rights is not fixed or brittle: rather the courts (in interpreting statutes, and now, applying the HRA) will pay more or less deference to the legislature, or other public decision-maker, according to the subject in hand. Nothing is plainer than that this benign development involves, as I have said, the recognition of the ECA as a constitutional statute.

In my judgment (as will by now be clear) the correct analysis of that relationship involves and requires these following four propositions. (1) All the specific rights and obligations which EU law creates are by the ECA incorporated into our domestic law and rank supreme: that is, anything in our substantive law inconsistent with any of these rights and obligations is abrogated or must be modified to avoid the inconsistency. This is true even where the inconsistent municipal provision is contained in primary legislation. (2) The ECA is a constitutional statute: that is, it cannot be impliedly repealed. (3) The truth of (2) is derived, not from EU law, but purely from the law of England: the common law recognises a category of constitutional statutes. (4) The fundamental legal basis of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU rests with the domestic, not the European, legal powers. In the event, which no doubt would never happen in the real world, that a European measure was seen to be repugnant to a fundamental or constitutional right guaranteed by the law of England, a question would arise whether the general words of the ECA were sufficient to incorporate the measure and give it overriding effect in domestic law. But that is very far from this case.

It is sometimes asserted that we knew about the so-called supremacy of community law when we signed up to the Treaty of Accession. That is partly true, although it is tolerably clear that Parliament and the country were kept in the dark.

JD,
..and therein lies our problem. You can count on one finger the number of MP’s who read those treaties before they voted for them, although be assured that the EU centric civil service were fully aware of the consequences.

In light of the letter on WfW from Mark Harper it’s quite clear that our so called representatives still believe that Parliament is sovereign and EU law is only enacted with the ‘permission’ of Parliament.

The bottom line in all of this unless the EU implodes, and I wouldn’t bet on it surviving in some form even then, there are no politicians of any main party who are going to do anything to correct the situation, as this goes on and on I am slowly beginning to believe we are well and truly stuffed, for that to happen in this country would be an appalling derogation of duty to this country by all who supposed to represent it, there really isn’t enough piano wire to go round.